Aug 12 2011

Santorum’s Epic Fail In Iowa

Published by at 8:21 am under All General Discussions

Rick Santorum imploded in the debates last night.  I did not watch live, but listening to his social conservative rants played on a conservative AM news station this morning I quickly realized he was completely off track with this election cycle:

RICK SANTORUM: It sounds to me like Rep. Paul would say that polygamous marriages are okay.

The entire discussion of the federal government determining who has a valid, long term, legal commitment between consenting adults is getting tiresome. I do not want our schools inundated with LGBT exposure (especially before High School), but on the flip side I don’t want a bunch of puritans preaching to me about their view of a proper relationship. LJStrata and I have been married for over 25 years and have 4 wonderful kids. But our path was not one a Rick Santorum would tolerate – as if I cared what he thought.

This drive into the ditch last night was why the GOP cannot get traction against the left. Social conservatives fail to understand that America does not want either party dictating behavior through the power of the federal government. Santorum’s obsession with polygamy shows he is not focused on jobs, the economy and our over spending government. He just torpedoed his chances this round.

Also, drop the pathological, hypothetical examples. It also signals an inability to find common ground when you throw straw men like our young President does.

17 responses so far

17 Responses to “Santorum’s Epic Fail In Iowa”

  1. dhunter says:

    That was a terrible “debate” last night thanks to Fox Snews trying to show its Bi-Partisan creds and how it could be tough on Repugs.
    Chris Wallace should immediately apply for a job at MSNBC as he was bent on starting an inter-party fued and not interested in contrasting the candidates views vs. the socialists.

    Byron York asked an insipid,completely stupid, useless, misogynistic question of Bachman about a bible verse and how wives were to submit to husbands. I know this quote has come up before because of her husband but a debate with 7 or 8 candidates on stage vying for time is not the palce for this stupidity and she hit it out of the park, York and Wallace looked the fools.

    Newt did well warning Wallace about their gottcha games but it landed on deaf ears.

    As an Iowan I had hoped we would get questions on entitlements, the debt, the deficit and allow the candidates to contrast vs Obama. That did not happen.

    These candidates would be well advised in the future to ignore the gottcha questions, the journalists resume enhancers, and do like Biden and give a quick hit, say 5 second response and then launch into their own messaging. Mitt did the best at that, Obiden is terrific to the point of not addressing the original question at all and with Obama ya never know. I learned NOTHING about these guys last night I didn’t already know save the little squabbles between each.

    Mitt was left alone to answer in a substantive fashion not being pestered by the gnats with the microphones stupid questions thus he looked good, again he was handled differently by all concerned. Three are dead men talking… Santorum, Huntsman and Paul, two are clinging on Pawlenty and Cain, the rest live on barely.

    Palin and Perry won!

  2. WWS says:

    I have always like Pawlenty, but not enough primary voters appear to share my opinion. We’ll see what happens in Iowa. I have to agree with those who are saying that Perry was the big winner last night – I’ve seen him up close and personal several times, and he does a better job live than any of them did.

    Santorum is a goober, he’s just in the race for comic relief. The loss of his Senate seat dooms him before he even starts. Compare to Perry, who has been running for office regularly since the early 90’s and who has NEVER lost a race so far. That’s a pretty incredible record.

    Opponents are going to try to paint Perry as a better looking Santorum, but he isn’t. In fact the biggest criticism of him always comes from the far right, much more than from the left.

    I think it’s coming down to Bachman, Perry, and Romney. Between Bachman and Perry, Perry’s got the executive experience that Bachman lacks. Between Perry and Romney – Romneycare remains Mitt’s achilles heel, and I don’t see how he stands up to a concerted attack on that point.

    Another thing about Perry – I’ve watched him long enough to know that when he’s got an opponent, he always goes for the throat. He doesn’t fool around with a bunch of wishy washy lets all be nice stuff. That’s a big part of the reason he’s never lost a race yet.

    Fun to think who would be a good running mate for Perry. Herman Cain would be damned interesting.

  3. CatoRenasci says:

    I never took Santorum seriously as a candidate for either president or vice president. He’s solid fiscally, but he’s too quick to want to use the power of the state to enforce conservative social values.

    I’m socially pretty conservative for myself, but libertarian enough to know that you can’t successfully legislate morality. Voluntary socially conservative behavior can be protected, and maybe even encouraged, but you can’t use the criminal law as a club to make people moral. There are different consensuses in different parts of the country on things like abortion and gay marriage: let each state reach its own consensus voluntarily (legislatures and referenda, not the courts) and keep the federal government out of it.

    If we eliminate the welfare state, and state subsidy of marriage through the tax code, there’s really no reason for the federal government to be involved in either issue at all.

  4. CatoRenasci says:

    WWS: I probably prefer Palin all things being equal, but I like Perry more and more. He has weaknesses, but I don’t think they’re fatal. Palin’s, at least for this election cycle, are. The country may shift sufficiently to the right for her to be electable in the future as she gains gravitas, but who knows. I think her best be would be a serious cabinet role in a Perry/Pawlenty or Perry/Bachman or a Romney (I shudder to say it, but he would beat Obama) administration. I just hope she realizes this and stays out of the race.

  5. WWS says:

    I’ve seen on the net this morning an article that says Perry’s fatal weakness is an interview in which he stated that Medicare and Social Security are ponzi schemes with vast unfunded liabilities, and that unless we have a serious discussion about reforming those two programs dramatically, they will collapse.

    Funny how a candidates “greatest weakness” may be his willingness to say openly the thing that every one of us knows is true and yet which we’re all scared to talk about.

  6. oneal lane says:

    It boils down to Perry, Bachman and Romney. Perry will be George W. Bush third term

    I know what you guys are trying to say, but the argument does not hold water. Morality is legislated in so many ways, each state has a “civil code” which is all about regulating moral behavior. The Feds also will clip you for violating its own codes.

    Law “is” about regulating behavior. Thus you cannot legally rape your daughter, sell your children into the slave market, sell child porn, beat your dog to death, murder your wife………………………

  7. dbostan says:

    I am also very apprehensive about Perry.
    His position on illegal immigration deeply worries me.
    As for Santorum, I am sorry for him, because he is right on so other many issues.

  8. Frogg1 says:

    Legislate morality? Don’t legislate morality? Both points are valid as long as neither goes overboard. However, this is not going to be an election about legislating morality. The conservatives I find attractive are the ones who can state their own viewpoint but don’t have a legislative agenda over the social issues. I think citing state’s rights is a good balance right now although I recognize the debate goes deeper than that. My head is on our financial situation right now….balanced budgets, smaller government, jobs, taxes, etc.

  9. Frogg1 says:

    Those who performed well in last night’s debate were Romney, Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain (in that order). Pawlenty hurt himself. The country isn’t in the mood for Santorum or Paul. Huntsman should have never entered the race. I think at the end of the day it will come down to Perry, Romney, Bachmann….and possibly Cain. The rest will probably drop out in due time. Palin won’t enter the race. However, she will contiue to have a big effect on elections and issues (right where I like her). Santorum is a great advocate on social conservative issues and would be a good voice in another avenue (not President). I enjoyed the debates; but, yes you have to wonder what Fox was thinking on some of those questions. On the other hand……those questions are going to come up by liberals so maybe it is good to get it out of the way.

  10. WWS says:

    oh come on, O’Neal, Obama was GWB’s third term!!!

    okay, I know that’s not fair, but I tell that to my liberal relatives all the time and it drives them crazy since they don’t know how to refute it.

    If you think Perry has much in common with Bush you don’t know much about him. Here’s one difference – if Perry were to win the Presidency, Karl Rove would have to get out of town for the duration. Those two guys *hate* each other. Actually, Rove would probably try to suck up if he could, but Perry has no use for him.

  11. oneal lane says:


    Hey in Texas!

    I was excited about Perry at first but, someone from Texas on this blog cited some valid concerns about him. WWS I think it was a conversation I had with you. (I think?)

    Obama is GWB 3rd term. Yep I’ll buy that! The further we get away from the Bush era the more I realize what a horrible President he was. Two unecessary Viet Nam type quagmires, huge entitlement increase, rampant illegal immigration the “Patriot Act”……

    I like Michelle.

  12. oneal lane says:

    The problem for Cain is that he is quite ignorant of world history, geopraphy, politics. It shows.

    On domestic policy, the economy, it might mop up.

    Palin cannot win. Get over it.

    She is a great “cheerleader” for the cause, but she cannot win the Presidency. She could not stand the “heat” of being the Governor of Alaska, thats kid stuff compared to the whole nation. Cheerleaders don’t make great Quaterbacks.

  13. dbostan says:

    Oneal lane,
    I agree with you.
    I love Palin, but way too many people just hate her for whatever stupid and manufactured reasons.
    Many woman don’t like her because she is a gorgeous and accomplished woman, probably unlike them.
    The libs fear her and did and will do anything to destroy her.
    So, let’s not fantasize.
    That having being said, I am afraid Perry could win, and, then disappoint us the same way Bush disappointed us.
    I would like a much more inflexible person, like Bachmann, who would stand on conservative principles to death.

  14. oneal lane says:


    Yes, I like Sarah too. However, She has not played her cards well. She should have stayed with her governorship, lived a little more low key (not so much TV) and studied history, political science, geopraphy and Law. What she lacked in factual knowledge she can rectify. Her personality tends to be a little too Histronic in the face of pressure. She would make a great Senator or cabinet level minister.

    She represents the polar opposite to the leftist ideal woman. They hate her with a hatred reserved for few.

    I fear Michelle is in for a beating from the media.

  15. dhunter says:

    Palin could not stay in the governorship. Anyone who still uses this argument has not paid attention and is just parroting talking points.
    I will not get into why, she told us and the information and reasons are there for all but the incurious.
    Sarah Palin will be the only person that will do that which is necesary to rebuild this country after four years of all out socialism and 8 years of socialism lite under Bush.
    She will eliminate entire departments and sell off the perks of office. She will cut the budget, not just the spending and ramp up energy production, while eliminating insane eco-terrorist regulations, all with the idea of building, employing and producing our way out of economic slavery to Government!
    Both sides fear her as well they should because she cares not a wit which side of the isle corruption, excessive spending and lavish living reside.
    She has more than talked the talk, she has walked the walk as some Republican jailbirds can attest.
    Sarah is the most qualified and she will show it. I think she is waiting for school to start and will announce soon. i bet we know by Sept. 3, 2011.

  16. dbostan says:

    If Perry wins only thre people can be his VP choice, in my opinion:
    Palin, Bachmann or Marco Rubio.
    Any ticket would be far better than the demshevik ticket, but I fear Perry would be worse than Bush.

  17. dhunter says:

    Palin was asked today if the nomination came down to a choice between Romney and Perry who would she support?

    Sarah: ” I don’t see that happening”